RE FAISAL MUHAMMAD

CACV 269/2018

[2019] HKCA 42

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 269 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1151 of 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 21 November 2018, this Court handed down our judgment[1] (“the Judgment”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the Judge”) given on 12 June 2018 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.  

2.  By a Notice of Motion dated 3 December 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. 

3.  Despite the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant has not lodged any written submission to support his application.

4.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of his notice of motion.

5.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

6.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that, if refouled to Pakistan, he would be harmed or killed by the people of the Pakistan Muslim League, who had killed his elder brother.  The applicant asked for protection under the Basic Law and that he be permitted to stay in Hong Kong.

7.  What was stated in the Notice of Motion does not constitute ground for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).  The matters raised in the notice of motion only relate to the circumstances of the applicant’s case.  We have in [12] and [13] of our judgment considered the applicant’s claimed fear of being harmed if refouled to Pakistan, and concluded it was unarguable.     

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  For the above reasons, the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal is not met.  Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.